Affections, wherein different from Sensation.
[27/27] I. After the general account of Sensations, we may consider other Modifications of our Minds, consequent upon these Perceptions, whether grateful, or uneasy. The first which occur to any one are Desire of the grateful Perceptions, and Aversion to the uneasy, either for our selves or others. If we would confine the word Affection to these two, which are entirely distinct from all Sensation, and directly incline the Mind to Action or Volition of Motion, we should have no Debate about the Number or Division of Affections. But since, by universal Custom, this Name is applied to other Modifications of the Mind, such as Joy, Sorrow, Despair, we may consider what universal Distinction can be assigned between these Modifications, and the several Sensations abovementioned; and we shall scarce find any other than this, that we call “the direct immediate Perception of Pleasure or Pain from [28] the present [28] Object or Event, the Sensation:” But we denote by the Affection or Passion some other “Perceptions of Pleasure or Pain, not directly raised by the Presence or Operation of the Event or Object, but by our Reflection upon, or Apprehension of their present or certainly future Existence; so that we are sure that the Object or Event will raise the direct Sensations in us.” In beholding a regular Building we have the Sensation of Beauty; but upon our apprehending our selves possessed of it, or that we can procure this pleasant Sensation when we please, we feel the Affection of Joy. When a Man has a Fit of the Gout, he has the painful Sensation; when he is not at present pained, yet apprehends a sudden return of it, he has the Affection of Sorrow, which might in some sense also be called a Sensation.
Affection distinct from Passion.
When the word Passion is imagined to denote any thing different from the Affections, it includes, beside the Desire or Aversion, beside the calm Joy upon apprehended Possession of Good, or Sorrow from the Loss of it, or
[print edition page 31]
from impending Evil, “a* confused Sensation either of Pleasure [29/29] or Pain, occasioned or attended by some violent bodily Motions, which keeps the Mind much employed upon the present Affair, to the exclusion of every thing else, and prolongs or strengthens the Affection sometimes to such a degree, as to prevent all deliberate Reasoning about our Conduct.”
General Desires, and particular Affections or Passions.
II. We have little reason to imagine, that all other Agents have such confused Sensations accompanying their Desires as we often have. Let us abstract from them, and consider in what manner we should act upon the several Occasions which now excite our Passions, if we had none of these Sensations whence our Desires become passionate.
There is a Distinction to be observed on this Subject, between “the calm Desire of Good, and Aversion to Evil, either selfish or publick, as it appears to our Reason or Reflection; and the particular Passions towards Objects immediately presented to some Sense.” Thus nothing can be more distinct than the general calm Desire of private Good of any kind, which alone would incline us to pursue whatever Objects were apprehended as the Means of Good, and the particular selfish Passions, such as Ambition, Covetousness, Hunger, Lust, Revenge, Anger, [30] as they arise upon particular Occasions. [30] In like manner, our publick Desires may be distinguished into the general calm Desire of the Happiness
[print edition page 32]
of others, or Aversion to their Misery upon Reflection; and the particular Affections or Passions of Love, Congratulation, Compassion, natural Affection. These particular Affections are found in many Tempers, where, thro’ want of Reflection, the general calm Desires are not found: Nay, the former may be opposite to the latter, where they are found in the same Temper. We obtain Command over the particular Passions, principally by strengthning the general Desires thro frequent Reflection, and making them habitual, so as to obtain Strength superior to the particular Passions.*
[31] Again, the calm public Desires may be considered as “they either regard the Good of particular Persons or Societies presented to our Senses; or that of some more abstracted or general Community, such as a Species or System.” This latter sort we may call universal calm Benevolence. Now ’tis plain, that not only particular kind Passions, but even calm particular Benevolence do not always arise from, or necessarily presuppose, the universal Benevolence; both the former may be found in Persons of little Reflection, where the latter is wanting: And the former two may [31] be opposite to the other, where they meet together in one
[print edition page 33]
Temper. So the universal Benevolence might be where there was neither of the former; as in any superior Nature or Angel, who had no particular Intercourse with any part of Mankind.
[32] Our moral Sense, tho it approves all particular kind Affection or Passion, as well as calm particular Benevolence abstractedly considered; yet it also approves the Restraint or Limitation of all particular Affections or Passions, by the calm universal Benevolence. To make this Desire prevalent above all particular Affections, is the only sure way to obtain constant Self‐Approbation.
The calm selfish Desires would determine any Agent to pursue every Object or Event, known either by Reason or prior Experience to be good to itself. We need not imagine any innate Idea of Good in general, of infinite Good, or of the greatest Aggregate: Much less need we suppose any actual Inclination toward any of these, as the Cause or Spring of all particular Desires. ’Tis enough to allow, “that we are capable by enlarging, or by Abstraction, of coming to these Ideas: That we must, by the Constitution of our Nature, desire any apprehended Good which occurs a‐part from any Evil: [32] That of two Objects inconsistent with each other, we shall desire that which seems to contain the greatest Moment of Good.” So that it cannot be pronounced concerning any finite Good, that it shall necessarily engage our Pursuit; since the Agent may possibly [33] have the Idea of a Greater, or see this to be inconsistent with some more valuable Object, or that it may bring upon him some prepollent Evil. The certain Knowledge of any of these Things, or probable Presumption of them, may stop the Pursuit of any finite Good. If this be any sort of Liberty, it must be allowed to be in Men, even by those who maintain “the Desire or Will to be necessarily determined by the prepollent Motive;” since this very Presumption may be a prepollent Motive, especially to those, who by frequent Attention make the Idea of the greatest Good always present to themselves on all important Occasions.
The same may easily be applied to our Aversion to finite Evils.
There seems to be this Degree of Liberty about the Understanding, that tho the highest Certainty or Demonstration does necessarily engage
[print edition page 34]
our Assent, yet we can suspend any absolute Conclusion from probable Arguments, until we examine whether this [33] apparent Probability be not opposite to Demonstration, or superior Probability on the other side.
This may let us see, that tho it were acknowledged that “Men are necessarily determined to pursue their own Happiness, and to be influenced by whatever Motive [34] appears to be prepollent;” yet they might be proper Subjects of a Law; since the very Sanctions of the Law, if they attend to them, may suggest a Motive prepollent
